I read the same article earlier today and also found it interesting. I am probably among those who agree the second amendment is as unsuited to twenty first century society as prohibition was to the twentieth. We have little leverage so the next option is revising the thing so at least the wording is less ambiguous.

Unfortunately I think while retired Justice Stevens makes sense in legal terms and historical terms, he is not taking into account the level of crazy we are experiencing nationally with regard to the Second.

snoqueen wrote:I am probably among those who agree the second amendment is as unsuited to twenty first century society as prohibition was to the twentieth. We have little leverage so the next option is revising the thing so at least the wording is less ambiguous.

Oh! I think you miss-under-estimate your relavance to this discussion.

If going back to the original intent, the militia was every able bodied free man. Not sure that really does much for us either. It's also a bit of a pipe dream.

Even if somehow the government convinced registered legal gun owners to turn in their firearms without violence, that's still going to leave millions of unregistered weapons available. Which means the same people who are involved in the majority of gun violence would still be armed. And with the rate 3D printing is evolving, those numbers are going to go up, not down.

Supporters, some of them armed, rallied Saturday around Cliven Bundy in his showdown with U.S. rangers over cattle grazing on federal land, forcing a temporary shutdown of northbound lanes of Interstate 15 near his ranch, the Nevada Highway Patrol said Saturday.

Detritus wrote:Personally, I would rather see the Second Amendment go the way of Prohibition, but I find his discussion interesting.

Allow me to gently suggest that Prohibition of guns will be just as effective as Prohibition of alcohol.

While I agree with your sentiment, there's a bit of a contradiction in terms embedded in your statement. If you'd like to see a wild west black market, exacerbate the current defensiveness in the stance of virulently pro-gun folks, and drive market activity further underground, by all means outlaw guns.

Politically, embracing the Constitution as written is a no-brainer. For example, Al Gore lost Tennessee and West Virginia because 2 key districts in Tennessee swung to Bush when Gore refused to express moderate and reasonable support for the Second Amendment, costing him the entire state. Same scenario in West Virginia. Had he won either state, Florida and the vote count there would've been rendered moot.

Viewed through a non-ideological lens, there is much common ground to be had, and political headway to be made, simply by embracing the Bill of Rights in its entirety. It's only the basis of the American body politic, after all, and whether we agree with Tea Party politics or not, voices from that quarter increasingly identify the same concerns as civil libertarians on the supposed other end of the political 'spectrum'.

For the record, I don't own a gun and never will. For family, ethnic-historical and religious reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I've been a big John Paul Stevens fan ever since I first heard the bass line on 'Ramble On'.

Detritus wrote:Personally, I would rather see the Second Amendment go the way of Prohibition, but I find his discussion interesting.

Allow me to gently suggest that Prohibition of guns will be just as effective as Prohibition of alcohol.

I see why you read my comment that way, but there is a reason that I capitalized Prohibition. I mean that, like the 18th Amendment, the Second should be repealed. Whatever its original purpose and value, it has brought great harm to our society, especially since the NRA became astroturf for the gun industry. I'm not in favor of prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms. I am against elevating the ownership and use of firearms to a fundamental right equal to freedom of speech or freedom of (from) religion. We manage to own and use thousands of objects without having specific constitutional amendments supporting our right to do so. Guns should be no different, and they should be regulated appropriate to the hazards they pose both user and bystander, just as we routinely do with everything from cell phones to car batteries.

For my part, I agree and would add the founders' notion the power of the government could be constrained by minimally organized individuals with guns has been rendered nonsensical. (Look at what happens when people bomb the Boston Marathon for an example.) In a way, keeping the Second as it is on the basis that you're providing people a meaningful counter-governmental option is almost a taunt. It doesn't hold up in the 21st century. If what you want is the opportunity to create anarchy or revolt, those opportunities aren't conferred (or protected) by laws in the first place.

I read that article and found JPS's proposal about the most batty idea I've ever heard. It effectively would repeal the 2nd amendment. The notion that this is a useful strategy in our political world is senile.

I've actually been arguing this issue with some gun people in the mosh pit (comments section) of the WashPost. The original intent of the founders is not at all clear, there is confusing and conflicting evidence.

The issue of gun control has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. There is plenty of constitutional space to implement gun control, that is established, despite the ravings of the right wing. The issue turns 100% on politics.

Alcohol has been around for 2500 years plus. Firearms for 700 plus. Why will prohibiting 700 year old technology be any more successful that prohibiting alcohol manufacture? (Not *all* states or municipalities would ban guns totally, but clearly some would)

Which rights are you willing to restrict that would allow authorities to confiscate guns?